Thursday, November 17, 2011

President Obama gave a speech in Australia today outlining the more extensive role the United States expects to play in Asia and the Pacific in the coming years. One of the changes will be the basing of U.S. Marines in Australia. The Chinese are reportedly unhappy with Mr. Obama’s announced plans.

In other news, three “Dutch” Moroccans have made a complaint against the Netherlands at the UN Court of Human Rights. They allege that Geert Wilders’ anti-Islamic stance violated their rights by making them feel discriminated against, humiliated, and threatened.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Erick Stakelbeck, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, JP, J-PD, KGS, Kitman, Steen, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

6
comments:

Anonymous
said...

So how is the US supposed to pay for these bases? Even if Obama or if a Republican to were in win in 2012 and actually cut spending, defense will probably get some cuts. The F-35 is a boondoggle. Even if it is just entitlement programs cut, the US in order to meet debt reduction targets isn't going to have the money to expand its military like. But let's be realistic for a second here. I know a few people here want to see the knife taken to social security, medicare and unemployment benefits. A tea partier is not going to beat Obama. Romney could and he is not going to make the welfare state disappear in an instant. He's a technocrat like Obama, just a little more to the right. So the social programs are going to continue to exist in a modified form, and defense spending is going to go up or at least be rebalanced to pay for stuff like this. Though how is any of this in the US' long term interests I'm not sure. Other great powers have gone broke spending on national defense. If the US feels the need to build bases in Asia to compete with China, then they are going to have to grow their economy as well and even then it will take time. The US as it is now is going to go broke and run out of oil if it were to go to war with China. If you want to preserve US dominance, you are going to have to come up with a more nuanced plan that uses diplomacy, alliances and development instead of throwing money at the US military, building bases and screaming USA USA! I'm made uncomfortable by China and the fact that it has created a seemingly rational almost technocratic dictatorship. Given the problems in the West, I fear such a model may become attractive because it also allows the private sector to have a role. This is why the US needs to remain powerful, but it needs to realize its limits given its current situation.

The fixing the welfare problems can't be realized by reforming the existing programs since these existing ponzi schemes are flawed from the start.

The welfare systems must be replaced... which is actually what Obama is trying to do.

Unless someone comes up with a better plan and a better agenda for this, Obama's plans will continue to foment (I mean develop) into whatever new form they may take after politics is done with them.

I call these Obama's plans because he's currently in the seat of power, but in truth these are plans driving by other agendas and Obama is little more than the current talking head on their behalf.

Obama isn't going to solve these problems. The solutions he promotes aren't even his solutions. His rhetoric pre-dates him and he is obviously coached in is presentation.

A sock puppet could accomplish what Obama's accomplished to date. But it is much less obvious when you have an accomplished orator speaking the words.

>>>As far as military spending...

... much of the strength of U.S. manufacturing and scientific development is accomplished via the funds spent on the military.

Yeah, we have a huge military budge, but a lesser part of that budget is spent on bullets and bombs. The majority of it is spent on Beans and Facilities that enhance the economies of teh local areas/nations in which they reside. Another significant aspect of that covers a wide range of research.

In fact much of our modern medical technology is based on military research in the study and development of composite materials.

In the end, it always makes our economy worse when we make a broad sweeping cut in military spending... just ask Bush Sr. and Clinton about that. Given our manufacturing base in the U.S. never recovered after Bush's and then Clinton's reduction in spending post-coldwar, even with the current military spending levels from Bush Sr. term.

And Obama has provided nothing to replace what would be removed from the economy by cutting military spending. He won't even talk about it.

All Obama talks about is taxing the wealth/success out of the economy, while at the same time mocking private businesses for their lack of success.

Tension with China isn't something we necessarily create. China has a very long range agenda in context of global domination. Any tension we have, create, or alleviate in this short-term political cycle will have no impact on it.

What usually happens is that China uses our rhetoric regarding tensions between nations against us in the war of popular opinion.

If anything China creates the majority of tension between nations due to what we consider unfair and unbalanced production and trade policies. And if we truly had a bad relationship with China, why does China continue to loan us money? hmm... maybe so they will eventually own us.

In this, no matter how we slice it, China's agenda is much bigger than a few political and/or trade hick-ups caused by Obama.

I hate to sound so simplistic but what will 2,500 US Marines actually DO in Australia?Australia has a long history of defending itself. They are more than capable. Why build US bases in Australia? It doesn't make any sense to me.If Australia needs help we can be there with a carrier and Marines. DO NOT build a US base in Australia.